On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 01:08 +0000, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW
Technologist) wrote:

Got it, Software ML removed.

Johnathan, do you mean to define it as below?
Firmware Base Extension, Extension ID: 0xxxxxxxxx (FWBE) , and the
SBI functions definition is firmware code base implementation-
specific.

I prefer this one as well. But you should pick any value within
experimental range. I am not sure about the purpose of the extension
but if it has the potential to be a generic SBI extension for
firmwares, you should propose it to the Unix Platform working group. We
can add it to the official spec.

This also works for me and better than to reserve a range of IDs.
Thanks
Abner

From: software@... [mailto:software@...] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Behrens
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:39 AM
To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@...>
Cc: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@...>; Anup Patel <anup.patel@...

; Schaefer, Daniel (DualStudy) <daniel.schaefer@...>;

software@...; tech-unixplatformspec@...
Subject: Re: [RISC-V] [software] Add SBI extension space for firmware
code base implementation

I think tech-unixplatformspec@... might be the right
list?

To address the PR itself, I'd personally prefer to have this space
allocated based on SBI implementation IDs analogously to how the
vendor space is allocated. It also probably makes sense to pick a
different address range so experimental extension space doesn't have
to move.

Jonathan

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:39 AM Abner Chang via lists.riscv.org <
abner.chang=hpe.com@...> wrote:

Seems opensbi ML is no longer exist? Use software@...
insrtead.

From: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:23 PM
To: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@...>; Anup Patel <
anup.patel@...>
Cc: opensbi@...; Schaefer, Daniel (DualStudy) <
daniel.schaefer@...>
Subject: Add SBI extension space for firmware code base
implementation

Hi Atish and Anup,
We are working on some edk2-specific SBI extension which intends to
be used by upper layer edk2 drivers. We originally consider to use
Vendor Extension space however vendor may have its own proprietary
SBI extension as well. In order to prevent from the conflicts of
SBI extension space, we propose to have a range for firmware code
base. The changes look like the PR below,

https://github.com/riscv/riscv-sbi-doc/pull/43

How do you think?
Thanks
Abner

--
Regards,
Atish